Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of Lymph Node Evaluation in the Management of Resectable Soft Tissue Sarcoma

  • Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The rate of lymph node (LN) metastasis is rare in soft tissue sarcoma, but there are histologic subtypes that metastasize via the lymphatics. The prognostic value of LN evaluation in these high-risk histologies is unknown.

Methods

Resected soft-tissue sarcoma patients with clear cell sarcoma, epithelioid sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, or angiosarcoma (n = 2993) were identified in the National Cancer Data Base (2004–2013). Cox regression evaluated the association of omission of LN assessment (NX) and overall survival (OS). Subjects who underwent surgical resection with or without regional LN evaluation were matched (1:1) by propensity scores based on the likelihood of NX or survival hazard on Cox modeling. OS was compared by Kaplan–Meier estimates.

Results

A total of 637 (21.3%) underwent LN evaluation and 176 (5.9%) were found to have nodal metastasis. Omission of nodal evaluation was significantly associated with risk of death (reference: N0; N+: hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–1.91; NX: OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00–1.40). After propensity score matching, there was a significant difference in median OS following pathologic identification of nodal disease for epithelioid sarcoma (N0: not reached vs. N+: 55.9 months vs. NX: not reached, p = 0.001) and clear cell sarcoma (N0: not reached vs. N+: 20.0 months vs. NX: 95.0 months, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

These data support more standardized approaches to regional lymph node examination for patients with epithelioid and possibly clear cell sarcoma and provide compelling evidence that nodal evaluation can be considered a quality measure in the delivery of cancer care for certain sarcoma subtypes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lahat G, Tuvin D, Wei C, et al. New perspectives for staging and prognosis in soft tissue sarcoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(10),2739–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stojadinovic A, Leung DH, Hoos A, et al. Analysis of the prognostic significance of microscopic margins in 2,084 localized primary adult soft tissue sarcomas. Ann Surg. 2002;235(3):424–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Yang JC, Chang AE, Baker AR, et al. Randomized prospective study of the benefit of adjuvant radiation therapy in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas of the extremity. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):197–203.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Strander H, Turesson I, Cavallin-Ståhl E. A systematic overview of radiation therapy effects in soft tissue sarcomas. Acta Oncol. 2003;42(5–6):516–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Enker WE, Thaler HT, Cranor ML, et al. Total mesorectal excision in the operative treatment of carcinoma of the rectum. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;181:335–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. MacFarlane JK, Ryall RD, Heald RJ. Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet. 1993;341(8843):457–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ecker BL, Paulson EC, Datta J, et al. Lymph node identification following neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer: a stage-stratified analysis using the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER)-medicare database. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112(4):415–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Datta J, Lewis RS Jr, Mamtani R, et al. Implications of inadequate lymph node staging in resectable gastric cancer: a contemporary analysis using the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer. 2014;120(18):2855–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Songun I, Putter H, Kranenbarg EM, et al. Surgical treatment of gastric cancer: 15-year follow-up results of the randomised nationwide Dutch D1D2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:439–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Degiuli M, Sasako M, Ponti A, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing survival after D1 or D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2014;101:23–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Datta J, McMillan MT, Ecker BL, et al. Implications of lymph node staging on selection of adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer in the United States: a propensity score-matched analysis. Ann Surg. 2016;263(2):298–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mazeron JJ, Suit HD. Lymph nodes as sites of metastases from sarcomas of soft tissue. Cancer. 1987;60:1800–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weingrad DN, Rosenberg SA. Early lymphatic spread of osteogenic and soft-tissue sarcomas. Surgery. 1978;84(2):231–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Riad S, Griffin AM, Liberman B, et al. Lymph node metastasis in soft tissue sarcoma in an extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(426):129–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Johannesmeyer D, Smith V, Cole DJ, et al. The impact of lymph node disease in extremity soft-tissue sarcomas: a population-based analysis. Am J Surg. 2013;206(3):289–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Soft tissue sarcoma (version 2.2016). http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/sarcoma.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2016.

  18. Fong Y, Coit DG, Woodruff JM, et al. Lymph node metastasis from soft tissue sarcoma in adults. Analysis of data from a prospective database of 1772 sarcoma patients. Ann Surg. 1993;217:72–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Sherman KL, Kinnier CV, Farina DA, et al. Examination of national lymph node evaluation practices for adult extremity soft tissue sarcoma. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110(6):682–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bilimoria K, Stewart A, Winchester D, Ko CY. The national cancer data base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:683–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Austin PC. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med. 2014; 33:1242–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. World Health Organization. International classification of disease for oncology. 3rd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Robb WB, Dahan L, Mornex F, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on lymph node status in esophageal cancer: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2015;261(5):902–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Miller ED, Robb BW, Cummings OW, et al. The effects of preoperative chemoradiotherapy on lymph node sampling in rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(9):1002–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ecker BL, McMillan MT, Datta J, et al. Efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for small bowel adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis. Cancer. 2016;122(5):693–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med. 2008;27:2037–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios. Stat Med. 2013; 32:2837–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011; 10:150–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. (eds). SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2012, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2012/, based on November 2014 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2015.

  31. Altorki NK, Zhou XK, Stiles B, et al. Total number of resected lymph nodes predicts survival in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg. 2008; 248:221–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Le Voyer TE, Sigurdson ER, Hanlon AL, et al. Colon cancer survival is associated with increasing number of lymph nodes analyzed: a secondary survey of Intergroup Trial INT-0089. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21:2912–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Smith DD, Schwarz RR, Schwarz RE. Impact of total lymph node count on staging and survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: data from a large US-population database. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23:7114–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Maduekwe UN, Hornicek FJ, Springfield DS, et al. Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in the staging of synovial, epithelioid, and clear cell sarcomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(5):1356–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tunn PU, Andreou D, Illing H, et al. Sentinel node biopsy in synovial sarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:704–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Al-Refaie WB, Andtbacka RH, Ensor J, et al. Lymphadenectomy for isolated lymph node metastasis from extremity soft-tissue sarcomas. Cancer. 2008;112(8):1821–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Behranwala KA, A’Hern R, Omar AM, et al. Prognosis of lymph node metastasis in soft tissue sarcoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11(7):714–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Greene F, Page D, Fleming F, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer: cancer staging manual. 6th edn. New York: Springer; 2002:221–6.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Edge S, Byrd, DR, Compton CC, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer: cancer staging manual. 7th edn. New York: Springer; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wright S, Armeson K, Hill EG, et al. The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in select sarcoma patients: a meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2012;204(4):428–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Karakousis GC, Gimotty PA, Botbyl JD, et al. Predictors of regional nodal disease in patients with thin melanomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(4):533–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wong SL, Balch CM, Hurley P, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology joint clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(23):2912–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) is a joint project of the Commission on Cancer (CoC) of the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society. The CoC’s NCDB and the hospitals participating in the CoC NCDB are the source of the de-identified data used herein; they have not verified and are not responsible for the statistical validity of the data analysis or the conclusions derived by the authors.

Disclosures

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Brett L. Ecker MD, Madalyn G. Peters MD, Matthew T. McMillan BA, Andrew J. Sinnamon MD, Paul J. Zhang MD, Rachel R. Kelz MD, Robert E. Roses MD, Jeffrey A. Drebin MD, PhD, Douglas L. Fraker MD & Giorgos C. Karakousis MD

Authors
  1. Brett L. Ecker MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madalyn G. Peters MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew T. McMillan BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew J. Sinnamon MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul J. Zhang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rachel R. Kelz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Robert E. Roses MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jeffrey A. Drebin MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Douglas L. Fraker MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Giorgos C. Karakousis MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giorgos C. Karakousis MD.

Additional information

Brett L. Ecker and Madalyn G. Peters are Co-first authors.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ecker, B.L., Peters, M.G., McMillan, M.T. et al. Implications of Lymph Node Evaluation in the Management of Resectable Soft Tissue Sarcoma. Ann Surg Oncol 24, 425–433 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5641-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5641-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation